Source
r/AskScienceDiscussion•
sid-kap

Are there any realistic, low-carbon alternatives to flying?

Long-distance air travel emits extremely high amounts of greenhouse gases. (For people who fly between continents, their flights are often the largest component of their yearly carbon footprint.) Are there any realistic low-carbon alternatives (such as high-speed rail, boat, etc.) to commercial airlines for intercontinental trips that don't take too much (subjective, I know) longer than flying? Also, for same-continent trips, how much of emissions could be avoided by building high-speed rail and encouraging people to use that over flying (likely through carbon taxes)?

Posted Aug 20, 2017, 9:39 PM UTC

75
Pharose•

That's what the hyperloop is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperloop

There's almost no limit to the speed that can be achieved in a vacuum tube and it would would also be the most efficient mode of transportation.

5
DiDDom•

We still have quite a long way to go though..

1
pavel_lishin•

Hyperloop doesn't use fully evacuated tubes; the pressure inside is just lower.

There would definitely be a problem crossing oceans, though.

1
Pharose•

They had telegraph wires crossing the ocean in the 19th century. I'm sure we could find a way to do it.

1
Capt_Blackmoore•

well, you arent getting over the water by boat anywhere as fast as a plane.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Riband#The_Blue_Riband_today_.281969-present.29

high speed rail would work for some situations - if you can find ways to get the costs down and the right paths for the rail. there's a desperate need for a Boston-NYC-DC route but it will be very hard to just get right of way for a path. but you arent going to connect from coast to coast in the US - while our own congress takes apart the last passenger rail company.

3